/m/bob_uecker

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

The reason MLB didn't want it in writing is they didn't want anyone to try to cite the poorly considered hypertechnical abuse of power as precedent in the future, isn't it?

I do think the risk of chilling independent decision making is something to worry about generally, but Das' decision was so preposterous on balance that everyone is better off with him being removed from future decisions.

Also, pretty sure MLBPA and MLB have exactly equal and coextensive ability to remove the arbiter. So while I'm generally all for Bud-bashing this does not appear an appropriate situation to do so.

The reason MLB didn't want it in writing is they didn't want anyone to try to cite the poorly considered hypertechnical abuse of power as precedent in the future, isn't it?

MLB just dropped the Elizer Alfonzo suspension because the same procedural things happened in that case as well. Note, this was not part of an appeal. MLB just decided to drop the suspension. Seems like a curious move if they truly believe it to be a "poorly considered hypertechnical abuse of power."

I do think the risk of chilling independent decision making is something to worry about generally, but Das' decision was so preposterous on balance that everyone is better off with him being removed from future decisions.

His decision was based on the rules.

That said, MLB was within their rights to fire him, per the CBA. I'm not seeing how this "chills independent decisionmaking." The players had the right to remove him also, for any reason.

Standard operating procedure for MLB. They fired the guy who ruled against the reserve clause.

That was Peter Seitz. They also fired Tom Roberts after he ruled against them in Collusion I. George Nicolau managed to make it through Collusion II, but once he ruled for Steve Howe on the drug suspension, he was gone. Every time there is a notable decision, the arbitrator is removed.

Seems worth noting that the Players Union has never invoked their power to remove the arbitrator while MLB has done it several times.

I don't think it is. Contractual rights exist to permit the beneficiary of such rights to gain advantage. It's not laudable to refrain from exercising contractual rights any more so than it is lamentable to exercise such rights. It's MLB and the MLBPA didn't want the other to have the ability to remove the arbitrator, they shouldn't have put it in the contract.

Standard operating procedure for MLB. They fired the guy who ruled against the reserve clause.

That was Peter Seitz. They also fired Tom Roberts after he ruled against them in Collusion I. George Nicolau managed to make it through Collusion II, but once he ruled for Steve Howe on the drug suspension, he was gone. Every time there is a notable decision, the arbitrator is removed.

If only we could do that to about five Supreme Court justices. (smile)

Well, more accurately, it's his interpretation of the rules. That is not the same thing (a reality I assume you realize). Stated more accurately, it is pretty obvious that there is something contributing to the decision that is beyond the written rules themselves, and that 'something' else is why people feel makes this decision quite understandable.

If you think the rules themselves mandate the decision, you have a version of the rules with a lot more clarity than has been published elsewhere.

I'm not seeing how this "chills independent decisionmaking." The players had the right to remove him also, for any reason.

The comment made was that this chilling is a valid concern whenever you fire an arbitrator, but on these facts and given this contractual clause, it is not really one here. Seems like you agree with that, in the end.

MLB just dropped the Elizer Alfonzo suspension because the same procedural things happened in that case as well. Note, this was not part of an appeal. MLB just decided to drop the suspension. Seems like a curious move if they truly believe it to be a "poorly considered hypertechnical abuse of power."

I think it emphasizes the point made above about the danger of bad decisions being precedents, actually. It does not mean the decision itself was correct. Since they have reportedly amended the rules since the Braun decision, it seems a lot more likely that Alfonzo's 50 games served was determined to be sufficient as part of the amended rules.

I can't remember which Justice said something like 'we're not final because we are correct; we are correct because we are final' but I think it applies here too.

We will never know the basis of Das' decision. As an arbitrator myself who has seen newspaper articles absolutely butcher the actual rationale used in my own awards, I take with a huge grain of salt anyone who thinks any award that they haven't read is poorly considered or a hypertechnical reading of a CBA. That is even more true when the second and third hand information being provided is filtered not through a journalist specializing in court proceedings, but rather a sports reporter who quotes cliches and tells of hits, runs, and errors rather than just cause in their day-to-day life. Heaping even more salt onto it is my personal knowledge that Shyam Das is one of the most respected labor arbitrators in the country and whose decisions are often cited by arbitration scholars.

Braun's positive test was leaked by someone his legal team had given the information to.

Fully acknowledge all of that--MSM reporting of legal issues is often outright wrong, and almost always oversimplified and under inclusive of the material facts.

Also, I think you would acknowledge that even the strongest thinkers make mistakes sometimes, for various reasons.

Those two things being true, we in the public have a choice of making our best assessment based on what is reported and what we can intuit from it, or throwing our hands up and shrugging. I do generally agree with you that there are a lot of risks about making our own assessments in these cases (and didn't make the characterization above about the decision, though I did include it in a response and do believe it is hard to justify based on what has been reported).

Especially when one of the parties both speaks and acts as if the decision is not a reasonable one (as MLB has here), I think it becomes somewhat more understandable to try and interpret what happened.

Might there be different language or facts than has been reported? Sure. Might they make the decision seem consistent with what we know about the intent of the agreement and the interests it is supposed to protect? Sure. I'm just not sure that is the more likely scenario here, other than faith in Das....which is not unreasonable, just farther than I would care to go.

Major League Baseball Players Association executive director Michael Weiner said Sunday that the leak of Ryan Braun's positive drug test was case-specific and maintained the program does not have an issue with confidentiality.

"Everybody associated with the case is extremely disappointed that it leaked out," said Weiner, who conducted the annual spring meeting with the Brewers. "I'm certain the leak was specific to this case. It does not threaten the confidentiality of the program and as I've said to players who have asked about that, confidentiality is as important as any aspect of this program.

"The program has a bunch of different goals but confidentiality is critical. If we felt there was any system-wide problem with respect to confidentiality, we really would have a problem. And that's not the case."

If not for the leak -- which came from someone whom the Braun defense team talked to in preparing their case -- no one would have known that the NL MVP had a positive drug test, appealed the decision and won his appeal. All of that would have remained confidential, as designed in the program.

But hey, why not blame MLB for the leak? They are the evil boogeymen after all.

Especially when one of the parties both speaks and acts as if the decision is not a reasonable one (as MLB has here), I think it becomes somewhat more understandable to try and interpret what happened.

I just had a longer response eaten by the new 'login' bug, but I'll try again.

I appreciate the tone of your nuanced response and agree with much of it. But in looking at MLBs response, my view is colored by their similar past actions. As noted above, Seitz was fired in the middle of Messersmith, Roberts immediately after Collusion I, and Nicolau immediately after Howe. Richard Bloch was fired after the Royals cocaine case. Ray Goetz was fired after Fergie Jenkins'. These are some of the most notable members of the small community of labor arbitrators and includes several Past Presidents of the National Academy of Arbitrators. Like the boy who cried 'wolf,' if the League speaks and acts as if every decision that goes against them is unreasonable, doing so is less compelling with each repeat.

Stated more accurately, it is pretty obvious that there is something contributing to the decision that is beyond the written rules themselves, and that 'something' else is why people feel makes this decision quite understandable.

What is this something? We know the written rules regarding the chain of custody (see here). NYT reported some of the basic facts of the case (e.g., the urine sample was collected at 5 pm, there were a number of FedEx offices until 9 pm although the last FedEx flight out of MIL left at 5 pm) needed to interpret it against the established rules. It seems like an open question of whether Das interpreted these procedures fairly and whether the collector followed the chain of custody procedures regarding temporary storage.

It seems like an open question of whether Das interpreted these procedures fairly and whether the collector followed the chain of custody procedures regarding temporary storage.

Agreed---and that is why we need to do more than simply say he based his decision on the rules, because there isn't a rule that clearly and explicitly covers the situation with Braun. What led him to his conclusion is the 'something else' and it's fine for someone to agree with where he went, but too simplistic to say 'the rules say so'

Like the boy who cried 'wolf,' if the League speaks and acts as if every decision that goes against them is unreasonable, doing so is less compelling with each repeat.

I hear you; I think the great majority of the time MLB behaves poorly and have little faith in them. I also, based on what we've heard thus far, think the 'bad actor' may this time have encountered an arbitrator who made a poor decision.

No; it was leaked by Troy Ellerman, who was a lawyer for Conte and Valente - but not for Bonds.

And Ellerman's conduct was particularly egregious because, while he was leaking the transcripts (of Bonds, Giambi, Sheffield, and Montgomery), he was complaining to a federal judge about the leaks -- and he even filed a motion to dismiss the charges... on the basis that the disclosures compromised a fair trial for his client.

Das has been the arbitrator since PED testing started. There have been 37 suspensions. We know that something like a dozen of those were appealed, because we read all those articles about how Braun's appeal had no chance of being successful based on previous experience. So why didn't Das go all "hypertechnical" in any of those cases?

Andy is like an old version of a child with a severe case of Attention Deficit Disorder. If daddy takes too long to string up the pinata, he's going to grab a stick and start whacking the tree, or whatever else is nearby. He simply can't help himself.

And Ellerman's conduct was particularly egregious because, while he was leaking the transcripts (of Bonds, Giambi, Sheffield, and Montgomery), he was complaining to a federal judge about the leaks -- and he even filed a motion to dismiss the charges... on the basis that the disclosures compromised a fair trial for his client.

The sides would then alternate striking names from the list until one remains.

So do they ask for a list with an odd number of names, so both sides get the same number of "strikes"? How do they decide who strikes the first name? Coin flip? (I would think that assuming you have some knowledge of most/all of the candidates, you'd rather go second and therefore essentially get to make the final decision between the last two candidates.)

Andy is like an old version of a child with a severe case of Attention Deficit Disorder. If daddy takes too long to string up the pinata, he's going to grab a stick and start whacking the tree, or whatever else is nearby. He simply can't help himself.

Coming up next on Eyeclueless News, Prince Fielder advises the fatties out there to eat a salad once in a while.

Andy is like an old version of a child with a severe case of Attention Deficit Disorder. If daddy takes too long to string up the pinata, he's going to grab a stick and start whacking the tree, or whatever else is nearby. He simply can't help himself.

Coming up next on Eyeclueless News, Prince Fielder advises the fatties out there to eat a salad once in a while.

And in Prince Joey's case, he's lecturing fatties who are 6' tall and 160 lbs.

It's an article or column posted by Repoz that's all but guaranteed to elicit either unanimous snark or an off-topic "hijack", which in turn affords certain brown diaper babies a chance to get all indignant about the "hijack" instead of just ignoring it.

What I haven't heard are any facts suggesting it actually happened in Braun's case.

The thing is, Shyam Das disagrees with you, and has been precluded from telling us why. So how could you have heard these facts you wish for? My point was that I haven't heard any facts supporting the suggestion that the arbitrator is some power-tripping loon who's been looking for any pretext to stick it to MLB since he took the job thirteen years ago. (And I know that you're not the one who suggested that.)